Re: bad plan

Hello Mario,

The query is in the pastie.org links, here is a copy:

SELECT
   t_geo.frequence, ST_SetSRID(gc.geom, 4326) as geom
FROM (
   SELECT
     geo_id , count(*) AS frequence
   FROM
hit.context_to_context_links
   WHERE
     NOT geo_id IS NULL ANDtaxon_id= ANY (
       SELECT
         taxon_id
       FROM
         rab.ancestors
       WHERE
         ancestors.subphylum_id = 18830
       ) GROUP BY geo_id
) as t_geo
JOIN
   hit.geo_candidates gc ON gc.id = t_geo.geo_id;

Thank you,
Julien

On 04/05/2012 14:03, Mario Dankoor wrote:
> Julien,
>
> It looks like you forgot to post the query.
>
> Mario
> On 2012-04-05 1:38 PM, Julien Cigar wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have an extremely bad plan for one of my colleague's query.
>> Basically PostgreSQL chooses to seq scan instead of index scan. This
>> is on:
>>
>> antabif=# select version();
>>                                                  version
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>  PostgreSQL 9.0.7 on amd64-portbld-freebsd8.2, compiled by GCC cc
>> (GCC) 4.2.1 20070719  [FreeBSD], 64-bit
>>
>> The machines has 4GB of RAM with the following config:
>> - shared_buffers: 512MB
>> - effective_cache_size: 2GB
>> - work_mem: 32MB
>> - maintenance_work_mem: 128MB
>> - default_statistics_target: 300
>> - temp_buffers: 64MB
>> - wal_buffers: 8MB
>> - checkpoint_segments = 15
>>
>> The tables have been ANALYZE'd. I've put the EXPLAIN ANALYZE on:
>>
>> - http://www.pastie.org/3731956 : with default config
>> - http://www.pastie.org/3731960 : this is with enable_seq_scan = off
>> - http://www.pastie.org/3731962 : I tried to play on the various cost
>> settings but it's doesn't change anything, except setting
>> random_page_cost to 1 (which will lead to bad plans for other
>> queries, so not a solution)
>> - http://www.pastie.org/3732035 : with enable_hashagg and
>> enable_hashjoin to false
>>
>> I'm currently out of idea why PostgreSQL still chooses a bad plan for
>> this query ... any hint :) ?
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Julien
>>
>>
>>
>


--
No trees were killed in the creation of this message.
However, many electrons were terribly inconvenienced.